Definition: A scientist is a "REAL scientist" if his statements can be used to corroborate my opinion. Otherwise, he is merely an ordinary scientist.

Definition: "REAL science" is the whole of statements of "REAL scientists".

Lemma: When assessing the argumentative value of two statements a and b, a takes precedence over b if a is part of "REAL science" and b is not. Conversely, b takes precedence over a if b is part of "REAL science" and a is not.

Theorem: REAL science is always rightProof: follows from the lemma

As REAL science is always right, I choose to base my opinion on REAL science only.

Theorem: My opinion is always rightProof: Since REAL science is always right and my opinion is exclusively based on REAL science, my opinion is always right.

That sounds like a bit of a scam. Their first magic technology just "captures" carbon dioxide. At which point what do they do with it? Why, store it underground of course. That's probably a costly and temporary solution to the problem. And eventually it's going to leak out and do all of the same harm, but at double or triple the cost. And nevermind the other toxic gases that they'd apparently let go. Apparently carbon dioxide is the only one that matters.

Their second magic technology turns air, water, and carbon dioxide back into gasoline, diesel, etc. I don't know about you, but that seems incredibly unlikely to be something we're capable of actually doing. If we could, we'd have no need for the oil industry anymore. They of course don't explain how this works. It's just magic. I'd bet they take their usual diesel source, and mix in a tiny fraction of whatever chemical bonds they're able to produce from the inputs, and pass it off as magically recycling the carbon dioxide; when in reality, it's probably more like hiding the carbon dioxide in the fuel only to be released back into the atmosphere without providing any energy of its own to power the machinery that burns the fuel.

I have no complaints about this sort of approach to being "green". I think those are innovative ideas to help the environment while still being productive. However, I also think that their technology needs to be independently tested to prove that it really works and isn't just a pretty veil to let polluters smile and wave. "Proprietary technology" that does magic is basically just more corruption until proven otherwise.

I don't think storing the CO2 is useful at all. Eventually it's going to be compromised. However, once captured perhaps it could be fed to plants in a controlled system to produce oxygen again naturally while also producing plants. There are probably theoretical solutions, but I highly doubt they're economical.

And if none of that is economical then it isn't any better than regulations in that regard.

Of course, that aside, the environment is far more important than the economy is. So if we can't figure out a way to protect the environment without hurting the economy then we SHOULD hurt the economy. Because ultimately it's doing more harm than good. Which means a booming economy may not be as good as you think it is.

It's nowhere near as far-fetched as you seem to think it is. You might want to look at the people backing this company and these kinds of CO2 to fuel technologies and decide whether you consider them all to be suckers.

Wrecking the economy for a theoretical benefit is not worthwhile when there are ways to capture carbon emissions while helping the economy. Plus it's how you get more people to sign on to support it.

Edit: Supposedly they're claiming that they'll be able to capture carbon dioxide for about $100 per ton.

Seems a Harvard professor and students are behind it. Which is encouraging. However, that doesn't mean they've solved all the problems and it's practical today. It means theoretically it works, and they need to overcome many challenges to put it into practice on a scale that will actually help.

According to that video, around the 5:14 mark, a rather massive array is used to collect CO2 from the equivalent of 300,000 cars per year. Which is awesome, but if you look at that in the grand scheme of things it would have a negligible effect despite the amount of space that it takes. It's a massive installation, and the entire installation will need to be constantly monitored and maintained to continue working too. Which on the one hand will create jobs, but on the other hand it'll impact the cost of the industries that need it, and the costs will get passed down to consumers, driving prices up. And all of the greedy conservatives and republicans will bitch that their costs are going up. And politicians won't have any part of that so it won't be regulated, and ultimately it won't be done.

Companies are not going to volunteer to do this. You'll need to regulate them to force them down this path. And it will definitely impact their bottom line. The economy on the whole might not be impacted fully if some of the loss can be gained again, but that sounds way too good to be true. I'm sure it'll just be a big expense.

From the sounds of it (based on another video from a few years earlier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5SqwSU8ns4) the chemistry to actual produce the fuel takes a long time. The demo scale model took about a day in a box the size of a large shed to produce half a litre of petroleum. Which I think makes sense. We've known about splitting water into hydrogen for centuries, but it's a timely process. Otherwise, we'd just pump water into our cars, instantly turn it into hydrogen and oxygen, and burn it. It will be interesting where this technology goes, but that's no excuse to hold off on regulations today. We know there is a problem today, and we cannot wait until tomorrow to solve it.

Scientist: updates worldview with new informationChild: incorrectly simplifies phenomena at a juvenile level

Sounds about right.

(Global cooling was never a thing btw. Global warming is correct but people like you don't understand that an overall warming leads to more extreme variance in weather so it's been called climate change to be more inclusive.)

---ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.they / them / their - Erin Maus

The point is they've been making dire predictions for decades with poor accuracy. Not everybody trusts their motives for pushing laws that involve the transfer of money, especially when considering garbage packages like the green new deal that mixes some green energy policies with tens of trillions of dollars of Socialism.

In fact, some WW2 planes had to land in Greenland during WW2 and they were left there once the war was over. Decades later they were discovered again under a huge amount of ice they had to dig down into a long ways in order to recover them. Over the years that is how much ice had built up over them, which is hardly warming.

Just do a search for "The Lost Squadron" online to find the story about them.

The point is they've been making dire predictions for decades with poor accuracy. Not everybody trusts their motives for pushing laws that involve the transfer of money, especially when considering garbage packages like the green new deal that mixes some green energy policies with tens of trillions of dollars of Socialism.

Surely you're not too dense to understand that the science is somewhat guesswork. There are far too many variables to predict exactly when calamity is going to strike. They can predict that the climate will be affected in unpredictable ways, and that the planet will change significantly is a short period of time, but they cannot give you specifics. It's not magic. It's science. It's computer models fed with as many variables as the top scientists can feed. It's still a long way from perfect.

What's alarming is that the right side of politics is highly skeptical of science which is generally transparent and open, but highly trusting of money sources like oil conglomerates and monopolies. Literally groups that will stop at nothing to maximize profits. Surely those groups are trustworthy.

A good scientist seeks the truth. And the entire structure of the scientific community is intended to prevent corruption. Individual scientists can lie and cheat for money, but the overall community will correct for that when they analyze results and attempt to reproduce them. Science is a self-correcting force. It can only be as corrupt as every scientist in the entire world can be bought. Some of them can be. Generally the ones that aren't very smart. Those are the ones that Neil keeps referencing. But the majority of them are not stupid. Most of them are passionate about the job that they do. They need money to survive, and deserve pretty good money for the nature of their work and their background, but they aren't on the same level as the oil CEOs and kings and princes that are rolling in the billions. They're probably lucky to make $200k a year. $120k is probably more typical, and many of them are probably making a relatively weak income that many of us also make.

Also, the right side of politics tends to believe in a magician in the sky. Without any evidence for one whatsoever. And they generally act on that believe out of emotion rather than rationale. It's not a good indicator for being right. It might be a good indicator for being powerful. But power corrupts.

So Neil, you were alive in 1045AD and you took that picture in Greenland?

Obviously not, but the records show that to be true as I already stated, there was a squadron of WW2 bombers that were forced to land in Greenland in WW2 and were left there until decades later. During that time a huge amount of ice and snow built up over the planes so much so that it took a lot of effort to burrow down through the ice to get to them and recover one of them. This illustrates just how much it has built up in Greenland in a short period of time. I'll try and find the story and link to it... if anyone is interested in the truth anyhow, somehow I doubt anyone will accept this either, but there is hope.

<searches> Here it is. They are buried under more than 300 feet of ice that has built up over them since 1942, now that a lot of ice. I can't see how anyone can think there has been any sort of warming when that much ice has built up since 1942.

Bam, surely you're not too dense to see that the left side of politics believes in plenty of fantasy itself, such as that humans can change their sex, that women earn substantially less than men in the USA for the same exact work, etc. When they get the models and other science demonstrably right, I'll believe their predictions. Until then it's best to take reasonable steps and not act like it's the end of the world, because history will probably reveal that to be another gross exaggeration (edit: If not an outright lie).

Bam, surely you're not too dense to see that the left side of politics believes in plenty of fantasy itself, such as that humans can change their sex, that women earn substantially less than men in the USA for the same exact work, etc. When they get the models and other science demonstrably right, I'll believe their predictions. Until then it's best to take reasonable steps and not act like it's the end of the world, because history will probably reveal that to be another gross exaggeration (edit: If not an outright lie).

I agree with you. The extreme left is just as corrupt as the extreme right. I guess that's why I'm just left of central. And why I vote for grassroots candidates and parties.

I agree that projections are probably overly cautious. I mean, if your research indicates that there may be a threat to the planet and/or humanity, do you tell the world exactly when you predict things will END or do you subtract a little bit of time to give you a hope?

I don't think the science says it will be the end of the world. It says that the world will change a lot, many species will probably go extinct by the rapid changes in climate, rising oceans could flood out the coasts which are not prepared for such a thing, and weather extremes may intensify.

I wonder how much money it costs to throw away several major, multi-million people cities. What does it cost to build such a city? A billion? 10? 1000?

How many poor and middle class people will die as a result of these catastrophes?

Bam, the question you didn't ask is how many poor will suffer due to climate change fraud? What many do not know is that the poor in nations like African are suffering NOW because they signed agreements not to use coal, of which they have an abundance. They could build power plants which would help their poor but instead, there is one medical clinic which serves the poor which is forced to only use one solar cell they can afford and that single cell can ONLY power a single lightbulb, or their fridge and that's it! Naturally they run the fridge to keep samples cool etc. There's families down there that have to burn some very toxic substances in order to heat their homes which leads to a high mortality from it when it could all be solved by building coal power plants.

Many people in our wealthy western nations think, what harm could be done by cutting back... JUST IN CASE... well, this is the harm. It is needless cost for us, and something which is not affordable for poor nations who end up screwed over in order to save the planet from something that simply isn't a problem.

Here in Canada we're already paying for it, our cost of fuel just went up 20 cents a litre due to the foolish carbon tax (and that won't help anything except it's an excuse to rob the taxpayer, it's basically just an additional tax).

The fact is, it was already discovered way back in 2005 that global warming causes CO2, but people ignore this fact. Politics have taken over and real science that refutes it is ignored and people who are against the lies are called "global warming deniers".

I'm 42 years old. In my town (Burgos, Spain) more than 30 years ago it snowed every day of every winter, about 50 centimetres or more per-winter. It snowed once in May and other day in June (really). Last 10 years it snowed only one or two days in 3 winters (so 7 winters it didn't snowed at all) and never more than 15 centimeters. Period

Nuino, there tends to be LESS snowfall in COLDER weather. But the amount of snowfall does not indicate warmer or colder conditions. The weather has not significantly changed, certainly the temps have not went up like they were forecast to. We have had some cold years, some warmer ones... that's called WEATHER... it varies with the sun. It has in the past when we had much warmer trends, and much colder. That's normal weather, PERIOD